Lee Daniel’s “The Butler” – A Powerful Telling of the Race Story in America

My wife and I were at the Mall of America on Monday, part of our celebration of our 35th wedding anniversary. We were wandering that behemoth aimlessly when we found the fourth floor cinema. Jenni wanted to see the movie “The Butler.” I wasn’t excited about seeing that movie, but I went to please my wife. I was wrong. She was right. This is a must-see movie for every American. It is a powerful and moving portrayal of the progress of race relations in America from the despicable era of desegregation to the election of a black president in 2008.

I am aware that some of the more strident voices on the right are condemning this movie as left-wing propaganda, as an unwarranted attack on (my hero) Ronald Reagan, or as an ode to President Obama. This is a movie about a black butler who serves the presidents of the United States from Eisenhower to Reagan, and of course it deals with politics. President Kennedy is somewhat sanitized (none of the now-reported shenanigans are covered). The worst portrayal of any resident of the White House is that of Lyndon Johnson – and from what I heard, probably the most accurate. Many of us card-carrying conservatives will recoil at the treatment of Ronald Reagan. He is presented as a cordial and friendly man, but one who also stood strong in his opposition to those who wanted to sanction South Africa for apartheid. Of course, the issue is far more complicated than that – Reagan supported some sanctions but not others. But I did not think he was demonized in this film. (Of course, seeing Severus Snape portray Ronald Reagan was a little bizarre.)

But I did not watch this movie as a political screed. I saw it as a portrayal of the progress of race relations in America and how they involved during my lifetime. I am now and always have been a white boy (duh?). I have never, to my memory, persecuted, ridiculed or hated a black person on the basis of their skin color. I do not believe I am a racist. But I have seen the world through white eyes. I have lived in white skin in a predominantly white world. It is who I am.

But a movie like this helped me go back through the events of my life and get a few glimpses of what life might have been like if my skin-pigment had been different. I’d like to reflect on some of what I saw. Talking about racial issues is a minefield – especially as a white man. But here are some of the things that I glimpsed as I watched “The Butler”.

1) I got a glimpse of Black America’s struggle.

America had a lot of racists back in the 50s and 60s – that is beyond dispute. But there were a lot of people, people like I knew, people like I grew up with, probably the majority of Americans, who were not racists, who did not use the n-word or hate black people or intentionally keep them “in their place.” But they just went on about their way not realizing the systemic oppression and dehumanization that was going on in America. We did not know how black people lived. We did not hate them, but neither did we go out of our way to engage them. We did not fight Dr. King’s dream, but we were just dreaming about other things and had no time for such things.

I don’t think I ever did anything to make a black person’s life harder (not intentionally anyway). But neither did I do much to help them either. I just went about my life enjoying the blessings of America unconcerned that many people did get those same blessings. I believed that America was a land of opportunity, ignoring the fact that others were being denied opportunities I enjoyed simply because of their skin tone and heritage.

It would be, in my opinion, a tragedy to watch this movie and the let trees of politics keep you from seeing the forest – the struggles that Americans of African heritage went through in previous generations. To quibble over the portrayal of one president or another and to miss the real story about the lives black men and women lived would be a tragedy.

2) I got a glimpse of the struggle within Black America’s struggle.

This is actually one of the more compelling aspects of this movie. It shows the struggle between what I discerned as three clearly different approaches to racial matters taken within the black community.

The Butler represents one stream. He worked with dignity inside the racist system. Some of the more radical elements called him an Uncle Tom for doing so, but in the movie, Dr. King describes the nobility of such men. They worked within the white system, largely in roles as servants, demonstrating that many of stereotypes of blacks as lazy, shiftless or irresponsible were not true. Forest Whitaker portrays a man who thought the best thing he could do to change things was to play by the rules and seek to change them slowly.

Dr. Martin Luther King represents a second stream. He advocated a Ghandian non-violent approach. The butler’s oldest son becomes a Freedom Rider and a follower of Dr. King. They go to diners and sit peaceably while people shout obscenities at them, spit on them, and eventually beat them to a pulp. Men and women went to jail for doing nothing more than asking to be served a meal in a whites-only diner. Of course, White America’s response to Dr. King’s non-violence was often brutal.

That led to a third stream – the radical stream. The older son, after being beaten and jailed repeatedly and watching Dr. King die, joins the Black Panthers and adopts this radical approach. Of course, I do not think this was right, but I do see how it was a natural response to the brutality across the South and in many places in the North to the peaceful protests. One of the more compelling story-lines in this movie is the relationship between father (the butler working within the system) and son, who starts with peaceful demonstrations and later joins the Black Panthers, breaking his relationship with his father.

There may have been other movements at work, but that seems to be an accurate portrayal to me. Each of these segments had an effect. Those who worked within the system changed our perceptions. Those who engaged in non-violence shamed racists and racism, and the radicals scared us into realizing something had to be done. Again, I cannot say violence was right, but as I watched this movie, I at least understood where it came from. In Cedar Rapids in the 60s, I just didn’t understand black rage. Why would they be so angry in a country as great as America? This movie helped me understand that better.

3) I got a glimpse of what Obama’s election was such a big moment, even for people who did not agree with his politics.

I know some black Christians who are not liberal in any way, but who rejoiced at Obama’s election. I have now voted against Obama twice and would do so again if he we was able to run. I’ve opposed most everything he stands for and the actions he has taken in office. And it was hard to understand why black people rejoiced at the election of a man whose values were so opposed to what we stand for. But as I watched the election party in this movie, I understood. For a persecuted, oppressed, marginalized and even dehumanized people, Obama’s election was the sign that things had really changed in America. They now had a place in the Oval Office and it was not delivering tea and coffee!

Even as one who disagrees politically with Obama, I can understand why that would move the hearts of my black friends. I was born with a place at the table. They had spent generations fighting for theirs and this was the culmination of long process.

No one believes that racism is gone in America. I still have a significant problem with some black political leaders and their ideas, words and plans. But for two hours on Monday I suspended all of that and simply tried to empathize a little, what it was like to live on the other side of town during the years of my life. “The Butler” was a powerful and moving way to see the other side.

You nailed it. I have been to see this movie three times. Two of the times were screenings shown before the movie was released to the general public at no cost top me. I think I was offered this opportunity because I am a some-time blogger. I plan to see one more time. Every time I learned something new. I wondered what SBC pastors might think of this movie. Thanks for giving me a glimpse into what at least one SBC pastor might think. One of your take away(s) was the same as mine: This movie explains why Blacks voted for President Obama, even those who don’t agree with all of his politics. Even though I did not vote for Obama–I proudly attended his first inauguration–and deeply respect and appreciate those who did vote for him; precisely for the reasons implicated in this movie. Many of us lived much of that history. We did not have the luxury of being casual observers, we were victims. Our parents–many of them are still alive–experienced the brunt of those days in ways that they still have a difficult time talking about. Anglo SBC personalities will understand the racial divide better, and the social justice emphasis of the Black church if they go and see this movie.

Therefore, when Al Mohler goes to Trinity Seminary and wax eloquently against the gospel having a social justice component–many of us find that as a direct assault of the teaching of Jesus in Luke 4: 16-21, and the civil rights movement in America, which was driven and undergirded by those verses. I was so encouraged to read Dr. Russell Moore’s recent blog post affirming Dr. King’s preaching of the gospel. It was “the gospel to the poor,” and the “gospel of the Kingdom,” that Dr. King preached(Matthew 4: 17). It was that gospel that liberated America from the brutal days of slavery and Jim-Crowism. That is a neglected aspect of the gospel in most SBC circles.

MLK was perhaps a liberal Christian and held very liberal views relative to the fundamentals of the faith. Although many who knew him personally, and spent significant time with him dispute that. But I find the gospel preached by the Baptists slave masters, and the conservative SBC preachers of the Jim Crow era–who did not speak out against the atrocities and abuses of Black people during that time–equally as offensive, and unbiblical.

For those who want to rail against the alleged liberalism of MLK, they need to also rail against the fact that all of the so-called conservative schools would have not admitted him as a student. And those who would have admitted him, would not have treated him with dignity, decency, and equality. The backlash against Southern Seminary allowing him to speak in chapel was horrendous. That kind of conservatism is equally as abhorrent as liberalism.

I celebrate and commend Alan Cross, Russell Moore, and David Miller for at least seeking to be sensitive to and understand the nuances and complexities of this matter. I abhor those who hold in high esteem the purity of the doctrine of the slave-masters and those whom Dr. King penned the “Letter From The Birmingham Jail” to–while railing against the alleged liberalism of Dr. King.

I’ve heard both good things and bad things about the movie. Forest Whitaker is a good actor and I would expect that he did a good job. It also does seem that the story of the father trying to work within the system and the son who becomes radicalized would be a very compelling story line. On the other hand I have an aversion to movies that claim to be “a true story” or “based on a true story” when they are far afield from the actual true story. For now I think I’ll pass.

I can’t help thinking that a lot of folks just don’t want to face up to the truth of how we treated black Americans. So, when a movie like this comes out that portrays segregation and prejudice, we hide behind the “well, some of the facts are wrong” excuse.

Thanks, Dave (and Debbie). I like the way you’ve judged my heart, motives and “hollow” reasoning. I make a comment about true story movies and you know that I am making excuses and won’t face up to the trutyh. Maybe this is one reason people can’t have honest discussions about race, because some think they have all the moral “high ground” and don’t even listen carefully to what someone else is saying. I said nothing about facing up to race relations, but made a judgment about a movie.

I have watched movies that portray segregation and prejudice. I don’t avoid them for that reason (although I’m not a big “movie watcher” at all). Black Americans were treated unfairly with Jim Crow laws, “separate but equal,” as well as being mistreated directly by individuals. I am not saying that this movie doesn’t portray this correctly. I don’t know since I haven’t seen it, and I’ll take your word on it. But we create problems when we make up stories and portray real people incorrectly. I don’t think this applies to just this movie only or just movies about segregation. I think this is an defect of all movies that claim to be “based on a true story”. The truth usually is that there is a true story and they didn’t tell it. This is no judgment on the general accuracy of what “The Butler” teaches us about racism. But wouldn’t it be better that the movie tell the truth about racism and the truth about the real life characters that are portrayed?

In Dr. Land’s later retracted and apologized for Travon Martin radio commentary, he said that racism today was a “myth”. He later stated that the majority of the SBC agreed with his retracted commentary. Therefore, you may want to qualify the above quote. There are those–particularly in the SBC according to Land–who believe that racism no longer exists in America.

I can’t look up the exact quote at the moment. I know for certain he used the word “myth” in the context of suggesting Jesse Jackson & Louis Farrakhan were perpetuating the “myth” of racism.

Therefore, tell me exactly how did my statement misrepresent Land?

August 29, 2013 9:05 pm

Tarheel

Well…the use of the word myth could in fact be very accurate if the conversation was involving Jesse Jackson or Al Shapton. 😉

Land was, I believe refering to the “myth” of a story that was being perpetrated about Zimmerman the Trayvon Martin case.

August 29, 2013 9:27 pm

Tarheel

He wasn’t saying bigotry was a myth. He was saying that Sharpton and Jackson, the media, the president, and others were perpetrating a myth of the case and using it to stir up racial passions so as to keep hemselves in the spotlight.

Besides, the words weren’t even Land’s anyway…they were plagerized.

August 29, 2013 9:35 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Plagiarized or not, if Dr. Land said those words, they were in line with his thinking.

August 30, 2013 12:20 am

Debbie Kaufman

I realize Dr. Land apologized after the brouhaha that came from his remarks. But here is ABP’s article concerning Land’s remarks. I don’t think Land is the only one in the SBC who feels this however.

I know for certain that a small group of SBC personalities views the statement that you are in denial about, as Land articulating that racism is a myth in America. Now if you want to believe something differently, go ahead. That’s fine with me. But as Volfan, so eloquently stated: Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

August 31, 2013 1:59 am

Tarheel

If he was saying racism is a myth, he’s wrong and the statement was stupid.

However, that’s not what he said.

Land was somewhat known for sticking his foot in his mouth…..he’s had enough to answer for over the years…but he did nt say racism was non existent….he said the story being spun up by the….uhm….(I’m trying to be nice) individuals he referenced was a myth. He was right in calling them out. They need t be called out. They’re not a part of any solutions, they only exacerbate the problems.

August 31, 2013 7:43 am

Christiane

seeing ‘The Butler’ is an ‘enlightening’ experience ? Well, good on it.

Dwight, I’ not Tarheel but how do you quantify the statement that”America is racist?” And evil, presumably due to being racist? Granted I think we all here agree that racism is evil. But “America is racist?”
How?

Time simply will not permit me to provide for you the depth of documentation & analysis that your question deserves. But if you will do your homework, or simply talk to other Black people, you will discover that finance companies will charge people with the same credit rating different interest rates based on color. People are followed in stores based on color. Whether a house or apartment is available to you for rent, and if so the amount of the rental fee is Oden based on color. Black SBC employees have told me that SBC entities have rented facilities to people of color at a higher rate than they rent to Anglos. Prison sentence for persons who use crack are substantially higher than prison sentences for those who use cocaine, because people of color use crack more than cocaine. If Dave Miller & I commit the exact same crime, and neither one of us have previous criminal histories–I will receive a much stiffer sentence based on color. No entity head has been hire by the SBC-although many qualified applicants have applied–based on color. More public funds & school funds are directed to areas of town where affluent Whites live based on color. I could go on & on. Jeremiah Wright was not all wrong. Why do you think Barack Obama & 7000 others, including some Whites, went there. He said things in an unnecessarily inflammatory manner. But the majority of Black America agrees with most of what he said. Why do you think the majority of Blacks believe Rush Limbaugh is racist(although I don’t), and the majority of White believe Jeremiah Wright is racist? Mike Huckabee was one of the few Whites who viewed Jeremiah Wright in a fair manner.

August 30, 2013 7:16 pm

Tarheel

I could go by this line by line and quite possibly come away with different conclusions….

Are there some (lots) of racists? Yes. Are there genuine acts of discrimination based on skin color? Absolutely. Do we have some gospel work to do? Definitely. Are we lacking social justice in some respects in ths country? Yep.

But at the same time…seeing (and creating) racism under every rock does not help the issue….it only makes it worse.

Institutionalizing racism makes it worse….ie. affirmative action. Not to mention things like thar go solidly against MLK’s dream of people, all people, being judged SOLELY on the content of thier character.

August 30, 2013 7:52 pm

Tarheel

I might add that Lying and sensationalizing a “true story” does not help either.

Dwight, I have never had the privilege of meeting you, or anyone else for that matter from this blog. But brother I think you are just plain wrong to call this country, here and now in 2013, a racist nation. No entity head in the SBC? Really? We have a black president for crying out loud!

I talk to plenty of people. I know lots of blacks. Had a black bro in law until recently until sadly he and my sister were divorced. I have elders in my church and congregation. I know that the things you listed still happen.

But the fact that those things happen still in the US on a limited basis do not make this a racist nation. And I think that statement is an irresponsible statement. We simply do not have institutionalized nation. It is not so.

We will never heal as a nation completely until we all give up this “us” and “them” kind of thinking.

I could go item by item in your list above and tell you that those are the exceptions, not the rule. Because they are.

Anyway, God bless you ministry brother. I look forward to the day when color is simply not an issue by people of whatever color.

Many books have been written, and some by White professors that support my thesis that although less racist today than in ’63, or ’23 for that matter–America is still systemically and institutionally a racist nation. At best it is a racial nation, but statistics of disproportionate unfair treatment of Blacks in nearly every segment of American society are well documented. Therefore, America is a racist nation, but again, significantly less racists than 50 years ago.

Very few Blacks would disagree with the statement I made. The reason that you disagree is because you live in a totally different world. The public school system disproportionately discipline Blacks greater than Whites for committing the same infractions. Studies have been conducted indicating that Black are treated differently in a negative way when seeking professional medical attention. I remember writing a check to a department store several years ago( perhaps 15 years back) and in addition to the usual information often placed on a check(DL#, telephone#,etc.), I noticed that the cashier wrote on my check the initials “BM”. When I saw that , I honestly didn’t know what “BM” stood for. Out of curiosity, I asked ; and the cashier politely told me it stood for “Black Male”. I was dumbfounded. I didn’t ask, but I am very doubtful that they label checks “WM”. The frisk & search NYPD policy has been determined by a judge to be unconstitutional racial profiling. If you want to belive that systemic, institutional racism no longer exists, be my guess. You will have to get in line behind a lot of people who probably share physical features similar to yours.

Nathan Finn and many others, before the election of Dr. Luter, argued that the SBC President position was largely a symbolic and ceremonial post. The SBC President position is a maximum 2 yr. position, that comes with no budget, office, or staff members. The SBC entity head positions come with a generous salary, and multi-million budgets to oversee. They also have large staffs they accommpany those jobs. And you really want to argue that a Black SBC president is more or equally as significant as a Black SBC entity head. Absolutely not. The irony is, if the current President of the SBC had applied for the EC, IMB, NAMB, or ERLC presidency, it is highly unlikely–based on history, recent history too–he would have been elected to one of those jobs.

August 31, 2013 1:47 am

John Wylie

Come on everybody let’s just be honest, yes we still have problems with racism. This whole Martin/Zimmerman thing pretty much demonstrated it.

August 30, 2013 2:10 am

Mark Mitchell

“The civil rights struggle is over, and it is won,” Williams said. “Now, I’m not saying that every vestige of discrimination has been eliminated, but the civil rights struggle is over and won. At one time, black Americans did not have the constitutional guarantees of everybody else. Now we do. The fact that the civil rights struggle is over and won does not mean that there are not major problems that black Americans face, but they’re not civil rights problems. And if we view them as civil rights problems, the solutions will be elusive forever.”

As I said on a previous post, this movie, while probably very well made is based on lies, not on actual events. Hollywood didn’t just embellish the “butler’s” birth, upbringing, marriage, and connections to presidents, they created an entirely different character.

My opinion is that they (Hollywood, and the liberals) want to keep the racist rhetoric alive and will use any and all means to continue to cause dissension.

Michael Reagan, son of Ronald Reagan, gives the true picture of much of the “racial inferences” that Hollywood intentionally put into the movie in order to sensationalize it.

I think you miss the point with you incessant appeal to Michael Reagan, as if he were hr final authority.

The power of this movie s tat it shows the black experience in America. You could attempt to see things from the other side, rather than dodging the truth of segregation and that was done to black people by white America. Michael Reagan is just as subjective about his dad on one side as the movie is on the other.

Reagan was shown as a really nice guy in this movie, but his policies on apartheid are put down. Now, looking back, he was probably wrong on that.

You should take off your political glasses and go see th movie for what it is.

I will see the movie. Have you read Michael Reagan’s critique? His critique is not necessarily political as it attempts goes to deal with the inaccuracies of the story that is upheld as “based on a true story.” I would argue that it sounds like to me that the movie portrayed the life of Mr. Allen in a far more grievous and reprehensible way than it did the President(s) as to make him a racial caricature. Why change the nature of the man’s life (as to make him unrecognizable from reality)? Did the real Mr. Allen approve of the depraved portrayal of his early life (it seems to me that his early life in segregation should have been enough but was cheapened for a more “dramatic effect”) — or the cheapening and demeaning portrayal of his wife to become some sort of two-bit alcoholic floozy (I guess since Oprah Winfrey starred her, that’s okay)? Is this what Hollywood thinks of successful albeit “servant” black male(s) who have risen to be a quiet influence – trounce on their history, make up a story about them, and sell their memories into another type of slavery to make a some sort of point, legitimate or not. I know what I would do if someone did that to my wife in print or film or otherwise.

Also, it is wrong to sy that the movie is “based on lies.” Just because it gives a different perspective than yours or Michael Reagan’s doesn’t make it a lie.

August 30, 2013 11:25 am

Nate

I’m not dodging any such truth Dave. I am merely pointing out that Hollywood is the last place on earth where we should be going for any “viewpoint” on history or on the current issues of race. And again, for you to insinuate that Michael Reagan’s reputation is as demented as Hollywood is a “politcal statement” that has no bearing in truth. What evidence can you provide that shows Michael Reagan’s commentary to be untruthful?

Since I should, as you say, “take off my political glasses and go see [the] movie for what it is,” I guess accordingly, we should then take Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson’s viewpoints as meaningful and productive to the conversation on race and not view them through the microscope of their illicit and intentional desire to continue to inflame hatred while never addressing any meaningful solutions.

And it is not wrong to say the movie is based on lies, when Eugene Allen’s entire birth, upbringing, and marriage and family is fabricated. And why, to enhance the theme of racism? If Hollywood wanted to make a movie about racism in America they certainly could have but what they shouldn’t do, and what shouldn’t be celebrated, is a complete re-writing of this man’s history in order to make a point.

Why, because perception is reality in this country? And Hollywood’s “based on a true story” is rarely fact-checked, yet people resonate with the notion that it is a “true story”. Had it just been a fictional movie, it would not garner the attention it is getting.

As one reviewer noted, “I can understand people being frustrated when they learn a film blurs the line between fiction and reality by starting things off with the idea what we’re watching is true. We never consider the power of the word ‘based’ when we see the phrase ‘based on a true story’, which it seems we should actually read as ‘there is some modicum of truth in this, but don’t for a second think this actually happened exactly as it’s presented here.'”

His review ended with: “However, will that compassion and concern diminish once they realize these people weren’t real in the sense they may have believed them to be? Does the fact everything seen in the film didn’t happen to these specific people, though it did happen to others, make a difference?”

Or maybe Nate, like many others is willing to see things “from the other side” when it is presented in truth and facts. Ignoring the intentional fallacies in the movie does nothing to further any real discussion on this issue.

Nate has judged this movie on one basis and only one…Michael Reagan said so. Nothing objective about that.

Better to go, see the movie, and empathize with the people who were marginalized and dehumanized.

August 30, 2013 12:13 pm

Mark Mitchell

And it seems that you are only using one source as well. Your single source is the movie. If we are going to trust what the movie portrays we need to know it is factual. Not only is the movie discredited by Michael Reagan but by the people involved in making it. The far left extreme liberal establishment was completely behind this. And the actors involved are all the same. Nate like many others do not just blindly submit to the clearly political agenda behind this movie. And by the way Michael Reagan is not the only one who has a problem with this move. We are not going to tear down the character of Ronald Reagan just to empathize with anyone.

I have never insinuated that racism didn’t exist in this country or that people weren’t marginalized or dehumanized. I have never said that we should not be emphatic to the issues of racism, whether it occurred 50 years ago or today. And, as you already know from my last reply, I am not simply using Michael Reagan as my only source.

So, do you think that Eugene Allen (and his family) is being marginalized and dehumanized in any way? Would your family be distraught if your upbringing and life was totally fabricated (and your wife was portrayed as an adultress) in order to make a movie of about the history of Iowa Baptists? I think facts matter and Hollywood never gets facts straight.

I’m all for moving forward and continuing the conversation on racism and how to overcome it satanic hold on many people, but this movie, in my opinion, does nothing to move that conversation forward.

You are refusing to see it and condemning it because a right-wing political pundit says it does not accurately venerate Ronald Reagan.

Look, you do as you please. I am not continuing this back and forth. The attitudes displayed by you and Nate sadden me, but that is your business. You are obviously not open to what I am saying, so there is little point in continuing this.

If you watch the movie and have some opinions to share, I will engage you guys. If not, I’m not continuing this discussion with you.

August 30, 2013 2:16 pm

Mark Mitchell

That “right wing political pundit” was the mans son. And he is not the only source questioning this. There is a lot to be saddened about this issue. But it needs to be based on reality and facts. Not just sentiment and a left wing agenda.

Ronald Reagean is my personal favorite of modern Presidents. I have read every credible biography of the man and have learned much about leadership from his Presidency. I’ve seen clear attempts to discredit our 40th President and call them out when I see them.
This movie does nothing of the kind. One area where it may come close is its coverage of Reagans views on how to approach the Apartheid issue in South Africa. Any honest person knows the situation was more complicated than presented in this film. But any honest person would also admit that to a black White House butler, the portrayal of this issue is most likely how the butler would have viewed it. The movie isn’t about examining every angle of every issue. Its about one angle–that of a White House butler.
And where his overall perception of the Reagans are concerned, they are presented as kind and decent people who genuinely cared about him–at least enough that Reagan equalized pay between white and black service staff. Thats something neither Kennedy or Johnson did.
The “they bashed Reagan” line is a myth perpetuated by over-sensitive political conservatives who know little of the African American struggle and don’t wish to know. Go see the movie and view it through the eyes of the main protagonist as it was meant to be viewed, rather than believing whatever conservatI’ve pundits are saying about it.

August 31, 2013 11:13 pm

Tarheel

Is it of no importance that the “perspective” depicted in the movie was not even close to being the “true story” as it was portrayed to be?

Tarheel, no its not, because the primary objective was to give that perspective, not recount history. The director took a real life and used that life to form a fictional plot line. Happens all the time in Hollywood so I’m unsure why it would be such a big deal when it comes to this film.

With respect to you Dave there is Nate’s specific question above (and my post for that matter that has gone unanswered), “So, do you think that Eugene Allen (and his family) is being marginalized and dehumanized in any way? ” you merely replied with an attack on the “political motivation(s) of Nate and Tarheal without answering the specific question. Can I assume then you have no answer to this reasonable question? “Qui tacit consentire videtur.” Otherwise with due respect Dave I am a bit disappointed with your tactic here. With a person who has dealt in the past with the back and forth admirably, an ad homenim to a truly legitimate question is greatly discouraging. It is as if you have tunnel vision and are unwilling to be moved beyond your original thinking. If you liked the movie, great! If you believe it sheds light on legitimate grievances of race relations in America, speak to it! But to discount as myopic how the movie has reflected poorly on the life of a real person and their families(s) is missing a greater point – it is as if you are saying that two wrongs make a right. I think you are better than this.

Adelle Banks a news reporter published a piece on Eugene Allen & his church ’bout 2 weeks ago. They report of his church members & fellow ushers from his church–who were pictured on the article was that this movie very much reflected the man on which it was based. If any of Mr. Allen’s surviving relatives felt like he was being unfairly portrayed, surely, they would have balked by now. I hear nothing but praise about this movie from the Black community. I am amazed at the difference in reactions based on different reviews I have read from Anglos, and responses on this blog.

Your analysis of how the butler would have viewer Reagan’s view of South Africa, and your understanding that it is very common to take a historical character & fictionalize his life, are perhaps the two most important points made in this comment thread. Your realizing that this movie is being judged by a different standard is quite perceptive. Your being a fan of Ronald Reagan makes your statement even more credible. I preached a sermon in defense of Ronald Reagan’s views on apartheid on a Sunday Night during the height of the controversy. It was probably the least popular message preached in my 30 yr history CBC. I lost some members behind that message. But like you, I loved & still love Ronald Reagan. He was the first Republican President I ever voted for. In hindsight though, although I understood & at the time embraced his reasons for vetoing sanctions for SA, it probably was the wrong decision. It lended itself to easily to the interpreting given by the movie. And if I had been a Black citizen of SA, I might have viewed it differently. Although, one large tribe there(don’t remember the name) supported Reagan’s position on SA sanctions. Most American Blacks believed that Reagan was supporting American & SA business interest over the best interest of the indigenous South Africans. There may have been some truth to that. Reagan was also concerned about–transition. As it is in Syria, and most places where there is considerable unrest–the issue becomes: if we replace the existing government, is there a better or acceptable alternative? Or will there simply be mass chaos? That was also Reagan’s dilemma. But again, in hindsight, he should have made a decision based on equality, fairness, & justice. Sorting out the rest should have been left in the hands of the Soveriegn God and the people of SA. Thanks again for your most valued commentary on this topic.

Dwight – how about his wife? Did the picture accurately portray her image? I think the movie attempted to portray Mr. Allen’s deportment well – how about his story? And with respect to his family and to you Dwight, dead people can’t complain – and his family I’m sure are stuck between a hard place and bank account. Often very good people are willing to let a few things go in order for that pay day. Me too. I would suspect even you. So, my brother of the gospel, do two wrongs make a right?

Grace and peace,

Rob

September 1, 2013 10:35 am

Debbie Kaufman

I just finished watching the documentary “Soundtrack for the Revolution.” Excellent and I highly recommend it. I am going to go see “The Butler” as soon as I possibly can.

There are many documentaries on Netflix or Youtube that can be watched by searching for Civil Rights. I remember as a child watching the news as cable was non-existent and even as a child was horrified by what I saw . Between this and the Vietnam war, we knew what was going on. I remember vividly the assassination of Martin Luther King.

According to the documentary I mentioned, when they were looking for the bodies of the 3 “missing” workers in Pittsburgh, Mississippi, they found 2 more bodies, one cut in half and thrown in the water.

Another shocking fact, when Martin Luther was shot, it hit his chin and cut through his throat, almost taking his head off. His vertebrae and backbone could be seen. We forget just how horrific those times were.

The problem with discussions about race today is we’re not allowed to have any nuance or qualifiers. This comes from the fact that there really is an entire class of citizens who have been made victims due to nothing other than the color of their skin. Because first slavery then segregation are realities in our history, and because many people today continue to hold strongly racist views against black people, it is difficult to insert nuance into the narrative.

But it has to be nuanced. From what I’ve gathered in the discussion, The Butler allowed no nuance in the narrative. A stark picture is presented which tells a somewhat one-sided (and perhaps distorted) story, a story that is frequently told whenever issues of race come up.

Fortunately, race relations have changed in America. They have improved dramatically. Things are certainly not perfect, but they are better. But one almost gets the sense that we are not even permitted to talk about improvement so long as any racism exists. We are also not allowed to point out the fact that racism exists on all sides.

I grew up in what became the only white family in a black neighborhood. The cause was white racism: black families started moving in, white families started moving out. I saw racism against black people. But I also experienced it against white people. It was tough living in what became a rough neighborhood in which you were constantly seen as the outsider and regularly harassed, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in overt ways.

We understand that being “a scared white boy in a black neighborhood” (with regards to Everclear) is not the same as the systematic oppression of an entire group of people, but that makes little difference to the scared white boy. But we aren’t allowed to talk about that.

Racism is a problem in America and it exists in every group in America and it needs to be dealt with not as a white problem or a black problem or a Latino problem or a… but as a human problem. The issue I see with a movie like The Butler (aside from whether or not Hollywood every bothers with accuracy) is that it spotlights only one aspect of the problem and the narrative we are constantly told is that racism is a white problem. That narrative is part of the problem. As my seminary professor Robert Smith would say, racism isn’t a skin problem, it’s a sin problem. And to add my byline: we are all sinners.

I’m not entirely sure what the best path forward should be, but I don’t think the best path forward is to constantly put the spotlight on the experiences of just one group. I don’t really think the path forward is to put the spotlight on the experiences of any group. Racism is a sin that needs to die. We need to kill it. But too often I feel like it is a wound we coddle.

Well, my comment is less about the movie and more about race conversations in America in general. Though I haven’t seen the movie, I’ve certainly been part of the American story, along with the rest of our citizens.

I say again that the balance you speak of in your comment is actually dealt with in the movie. Not all white people are presented as devils. The conflict in the black community over appropriate responses to segregation was one of the driving forces in the movie (my point 2 in the piece).

I appreciate what you say in your comment, but my frustration in this debate has been the dogmatic comments made by people who haven’t seen the movie about what is in it – based solely on one very subjective opinion.

I’d still encourage you to see the movie.

August 30, 2013 2:00 pm

Adam G. in NC

Chris, that is a touching story, but hasnt anyone told you that your experience doesnt count? You see through bigoted white eyes whether you know it or not…as will your children, their children, and their children. Nothing can stop this argument and it will persist.

Well, first of all, as a conservative, I did not see this as having a left wing agenda. It is your assumption that a movie that compassionately portrays the plight of blacks in America is a “left wing agenda.”

But, as I watched the movie, I came to understand a little more what it was like to grow up black in this land during the time I was growing up white. It helped me to understand my youth a little better.

I think that discounting the feelings and perspectives of people simply because they do not cowtow to right wing political correctness is a mistake too.

August 30, 2013 1:56 pm

Mark Mitchell

And just how do you know that this is nothing more than the perspective from them. How do you know this is not a perspective from a political agenda? What evidence do you have to support that?

August 30, 2013 2:06 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Mark: So many hide behind religion to mask their unfeeling about this race issue. They hide behind the mask of “well, they are left wing and have an agenda.” Use the heart God gave us and feel something instead of dismissing it. I am frankly tired of it.

August 30, 2013 2:29 pm

Mark Mitchell

Who is it that is dismissing it? Who is it that is unfeeling? Why are either of those tied to this particular movie? Why is it that questioning this movie brings on unfounded assumptions about those who do? Why is it that disagreement with the movie brings about assumptions that we will or have not seen the movie?

August 30, 2013 2:37 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Sometimes I wonder what in the world has happened to Christians in America for you to make such a remark Adam.

I haven’t seen it either. But you are correct that racism exists in all corners to some degree or another. You said,

“I don’t think the best path forward is to constantly put the spotlight on the experiences of just one group.”

Just yesterday a Reverend in DC said the following about Walmart and the squabble going on there about some new Walmart stores. He called Walmart a:

“little bitty cracker corporation from Arkansas.”

If we are ever to get further in these discussions, ALL racists must be called out, not just one ethnicity.

August 30, 2013 2:54 pm

Debbie Kaufman

Les: I am going to be honest here and I’m pretty sure I’m going to open a can of worms.

I don’t blame blacks who are prejudiced against whites. They know more about the history of their race and what the white people did to their fathers, grandfathers, mothers, aunts etc. than most white people who have not seen these things are. I give them much more latitude than I do white people. What was done to their race was horrendous in nature. And it was done by almost everyone, even in the churches at the time. I have a harder problem with whites who are racist and have no reason to be than I do blacks who have a reason to be prejudiced in my opinion.

Well Debbie you should. It is wrong. It’s a sin and it needs to be stopped by all. Racism is wrong no matter who is committing that sin.

August 30, 2013 11:47 pm

Christiane

thing is, if you are a member of a family where someone has been a victim of hatred, then you are not ‘prejudiced’, are you. You already know that it happened, and from the stories handed down, you know it harmed the family member(s). Even now, some states are arranging it to be much more difficult for our black citizens to vote, than for our white citizens.

No, it’s only ‘prejudice’ if you judge someone before they have done anything. African Americans are ‘prejudiced’, because they have lived through times of hatred and evil. If they ‘judge’, I suppose they, at least, have the gravitas to do it from experience.

We reap what we sow. Our beloved country allowed slavery for a long time. Some states are ‘allowing’ our black citizens to stand much longer in lines to vote, because they have made laws in order to ‘discourage’ them. This is a sad truth. But black, white, and Hispanic folks are working positively to change this, or at least to ‘ameliorate’ the conditions for those who must endure the poor treatment . . . we are still trying to do what is right, and we are working together as a country to see it through.

August 31, 2013 12:23 am

Christiane

BTW, my father of blessed memory was an immigrant who did not speak English when he came here . . . he has told stories of his own experiences with prejudice and mistreatment. He held no bitterness. But it did affect him, and left its mark.

One experience as a child scarred him badly: he witnessed some older boys of a different ethnic group throw a younger boy into deep water (as a joke, they said) . . . my father remembered the boy’s screams. The boy drowned.
Some things you don’t ‘get over’ so easily.
My dad remembered that experience all his life.
I have great empathy for any one whose family has endured prejudice and harassment.

August 31, 2013 12:30 am

Debbie Kaufman

Chris: I don’t think they are sinning. I believe they are justified. We have a lot to make up for as Christian whites. A lot and I was around during the civil rights movement. If someone is going to want to lynch me, beat me, put me in slavery, I’m going to be pretty prejudiced against them. I would hate them with a passion.

Until we as Christians lead the way and that includes in our comments on blogs, I don’t blame those who are prejudiced against whites at all. To them we have always had it cushy and compared to most of them, we have.

That certainly was the position of the Baptists slave-masters, and those who practiced racism during the Jim Crow era.

I believe that no one race has a monopoly on racism. I believe that racism is a sin. And there is no sin that Black people cannot commit, or be exempt from, including racism.
Many of you are unaware that it is commonly taught in Black Academic circles that Blacks are incapable of being racist, because on order to be a racist, one must have the power or authority to act on their racism. Inasmuch as Blacks by and large view themselves as powerless in American society–notwithstanding the election of Barack Obama–therefore, they cannot be racist. I totally disagree with that analysis. Again, racism is a sin… and there is not one sin Blacks are not capable of committing-including racism.

Debbie is correct to this extent: persons who are members of the majority community need to practice & extend sensitivity, seeking to understand before being understood, and to sometimes give the benefit of the doubt, or a pass to those who have been victims. It’s called grace.

I was called the “N” word by a White person when I was about 9-10 years old. I will never forget it. I recall being issues textbooks in elementary school that were ragged with loose & tattered binding, with the names of White students written in them. They were passed down to us after White students had no more use for them. I recall being seated in the balcony at the matinee, while White’s only could sit on the main floor. At my Jewish/White doctor’s office, there was a small Negro section where we sat, and a much larger nicer Whites only section where they sat. Our parents told us to “empty our bladders” before long car rides, because stopping to use the restroom was simply not an option in many areas where we traveled. Mama also packed food for us, for the same reasons. A sister of mine was brutally beaten by a policeman beyond recognition, simply because she wanted to exercise her right not to sign a traffic ticket without first getting legal counsel. She was a civics/social studies teacher. She knew her rights. But the White cop was insulted that she would make such a request. He arrested her, and beat her unmercifully for no other reason. Our family filed a lawsuit. Two weeks before the trial, the offending officer committee suicide, thus effectively destroying the case. Debbie is correct; unless you have walked in the shoes of Black people, you really don’t understand the depth of their pain. It would be wise to extend to them grace and understanding.

BTW,
I am thrilled that we have an ERLC President who understands the sensitive, intricate, complex nature of–and the tenor, tone, temperament and balance by which this subject must be addressed. The SBC & many commenters on this thread could learn a lot from the example of Russell Moore on this thread.

I am grateful that a Black man was not hired in his position. If a brother was saying what Moore is saying, the flack & heat would be unbearable. However, just as some things are better spoken by a Black to another Black, I believe Russell Moore is the best man to speak to Southern Baptists & to represent Southern Baptists on race issues at this point. He is redeeming and restoring credibility to that entity. And for that, I am grateful.

August 31, 2013 12:15 pm

Adam G. in Nc

Sorry, but that’s clear prejudice.

August 31, 2013 1:21 am

Adam G. in Nc

Debbie, after re-reading your post I began thinking that maybe you were just being open and honest about your struggles. That is commendable. Praying for your transformation.

August 31, 2013 1:24 am

John Wylie

Debbie,

It’s one thing to say you can understand why someone is prejudiced and quite another to say that you don’t blame someone for being prejudiced. Racism is a sin for anyone. No one has an excuse to be prejudiced. If anyone did have an excuse Jesus would not have told first century Jews to submit to the Roman government. He would not have told His disciples to Luk 6:27-28 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, (28) bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” (ESV)

I’m sorry Debbie, but you are unequivocally wrong on that one.

August 31, 2013 1:33 am

Debbie Kaufman

Adam: And I say you guys just don’t get it. Praying for your transformation. I don’t see it as sin, and I also think God understands.

August 31, 2013 1:46 am

Debbie Kaufman

I think the problem with you guys and your thinking is to you sin is just cut and dried. It isn’t always. God understands when someone is raped and hates her rapist or even men. God understands when someone has been abused by the church to the point of breaking them, ruining their reputation for nothing more than questioning an action or theology, and this person hates the church. And he understands when a people are so mistreated, beaten down, seen as subhuman and they are prejudiced against the race that did this to them. God is for the downtrodden, that is what the Bible says. It does not say the downtrodden cannot be human and hurt. That deep hurt will include hate.

August 31, 2013 2:00 am

Debbie Kaufman

If we will get off of our high horses and realize just what the Black community has gone through and is going through, even if it is to a lesser degree, although I might remind you of the murder by dragging of James Byrd Jr. who was drug to death behind a pickup in 1998, Trevon’s death just a short time ago, both which were discussions that were a divided discussion in the church and shouldn’t have been, forgiveness is a long, hard process that may never happen. I see why and give the black community the right to be prejudiced. White people all over the country did horrible, unforgiveable acts.

August 31, 2013 2:08 am

John Wylie

I’m sorry Debbie, you are as wrong as you can be on this one. You are making the words of Christ of no effect. You are dismissing His clear teaching and you have no right to do that.

If God understands and condones when we hate, why did he send Jonah to Nineveh?

August 31, 2013 2:38 am

Dale Pugh

I’m kind of wondering where all the discussion has been regarding the “random” killing of a white Australian baseball player and a white 88 year old WW 2 vet, both at the hands of “bored” black teenagers, has been.
There was outrage on this very blog about the Trayvon Martin case. Where’s the outrage over these other two deaths? Is it because no one sees the racial implications in these murders? The authorities haven’t dubbed them “hate crimes.” No, these were just bored kids.
Racism doesn’t look good coming from anyone, at anytime, anywhere. Anyone of any color is capable of racist stupidity.

I know you directed your question to Adam, but I think what he was calling clear prejudice was Debbie’s assertion that it’s okay for blacks to be prejudiced against and actually hate white people. Brother she said that it wouldn’t be a sin for them to do that and she even stated that God would be ok with it.

Now brother you have my deepest respect and I agree with what you have been saying on this blog post. As a matter of fact it’s my intention to go see The Butler so that I can possibly gain some insight so that I might see a glimpse from the African American viewpoint. Having said that though, Debbie’s comments above constitute some of the most out of line and anti biblical statements that have ever been posted on this blog.

August 31, 2013 12:27 pm

Dale Pugh

Debbie, maybe you could give some scriptural support to your position. You’re the one who claims to read it clearly. Where do you read the justification for your position in the bible?

August 31, 2013 7:12 am

Bill Mac

Israel was occupied for centuries by brutal oppressors. Yet Jesus said to love our enemies. He rebuked Peter, who grabbed a sword to protect him. He commanded them to march with soldiers willingly. He freely forgave his Roman crucifiers. He never, never justified hate or prejudice in anyone. Never. Violence begets violence. Hate begets hate and racism begets racism. Racism may be understandable, but it is never right. It is always a sin. And giving one race a pass on prejudice is racism. The golden rule is colorblind.

After you & your beautiful wife go and see the “Butler”…call me. I would like to dialogue with you about it. Maybe you will allow me to return the favor & buy you a rib -eye or Prime Rib. Tell your brother, hello. I’ve thought of him often since being there. He has a great spirit.

No. What he said was wrong. It can & should be called out as sinful and racist. Also, the senseless killings of innocent Whites for reasons of “boredom” should also be called out as racist, wrong, and sinful. The Wal-Mart “cracker” remark was unnecessary & unjustifiable.

“Understanding” needs to be extended to those who have experienced legitimate acts of racism, and are yet in the process of managing & learning to properly/biblically respond to others. Their pain and anger certainly must be understood. And it is certainly justified. That simply is Debbie’s point. She has overstated it though.

Thank you for saying so. Would that more so called leaders in race relations would do likewise.

I do my best to understand. Though I am white, I have pretty extensive experience in white/black relations over the years, including in my own family. I have stated some of that history here.

But for any of us on either “side” (and I hate to use that word, but hope it is taken in the right way. I wish there were no sides) to have to ignore blatant racism by any ethnicity just so we can be shown as being understanding is wrong too. Especially we Christians can and should be understanding, yes, but also call out those Christians in the black and white communities who are continuing to undermine genuine race relation repairs by themselves being and promoting racist ideas.

The problem for someone like me (white) is that I’m almost always viewed as unqualified to speak to it because of MY race. “You don’t get it” I’m told. That’s not right either.

August 31, 2013 12:41 pm

Dale Pugh

Thank you, Dwight.
I lived in Wilmer, TX, during the forced desegregation that occurred in the early 70’s. While there can be no doubt that blacks as a whole were seen as second-class citizens during that time, there was nothing about my experience as a young teen to tell me that racism would be eradicated by the busing of whites into a black school and blacks into a white school. I was both a perpetrator of racism by my white upbringing and a victim of racism at the hands of black students my age. I stood at my locker in the school hallway, stomach churning because I knew that a black classmate would be there momentarily to press a knife point in my ribs and demand any money I had. He did so, not because he needed the money, but because I was a 13 year old white boy in “his school.”
As a Christian who has experienced racist taunts at the hands of those of other races, not just blacks, I know that to return such simply because I have experienced it is not the way to deal with it. The same must be said to people of all races. Should “understanding” be granted to me as a white person because I have been the victim of racial slurs? If so, then yes, understanding should be extended to those of other races. If not, then when why not?
As I have said before on this blog, I will be happy when the day comes that a person’s race is not mentioned as a factor in anything they accomplish or do.
Debbie has not simply overstated her case. She has completely ignored biblical teachings on the subject.

I feel your pain and I agree with the gist of your perspective. Unfortunately, society seldom or inadequately addresses the pain of reverse racism, because that simply is not what most people relate to. But it is just as raw, real, and wrong. It should be addressed redemptively and prophetically, just as we address White on Black racism. You make a valid point: Bkacks aren’t the only ones who have been victimized as a result of race. There is no justification for either. The SBC is now in a unique position to address all sides of this issue. Although you certainlyly have not requester it, nor do you need it; but I have a need to say to you Dale, on my behalf of my Black Kingdom-citizen brothers & sisters who recognize that you were wrongly violated and economically & emotionally harmed by young Black men who were practicing racism in the most vicious and vilest form…..please forgive us. You were dealt with wrongful & sinful. And as a member of the race of people who treated you that way…please accept our apology, and forgive us. Thanks.

August 31, 2013 1:46 pm

Dale Pugh

Dwight, I’m humbled. As you said, I didn’t request such a response from you, nor is it necessary, but I’m deeply touched by your words. I never expected those words. In fact, I’m a little embarrassed by them.
My experience is by no means a matter of institutional racism on the grand scale seen in our nation’s past. Vast numbers of blacks, native Americans, Hispanics, and others have known the fear of chains, the whip, the gun, the rope, etc., all because of the color of their skin. I do not condone it, and my heart is broken by any racial discrimination I see. You, as a black man, have known this much more personally than I have, and on a much more frequent basis. I am deeply saddened by that fact, and I pray for an end to such in our nation.
I have chosen to live my life with no regard for skin color. Sometimes I struggle with that choice. My struggle does not please me, and I have to choose to be more than my flesh would allow at times. That is the work of God’s Spirit, is it not?
My forgiveness is very humbly extended. I appreciate your heart.

August 31, 2013 2:28 pm

Joel Hunt

Christians should be watching movies anyway…

August 30, 2013 12:19 pm

Joel Hunt

*shouldn’t

And I’m only joking. I thought it would be fun to bring the legalists (and the “unlegalistitic” legalists) out howling…

Thanks for accepting our apology. We need to heal racial wounds in America. The church really needs to lead in facilitating healing. But like on other important issues, we are pulling up the rear. And then we criticize the movie industry when they address it. Perhaps God is using this movie to trigger a conversation that the church needs to have. I certainly learned a lot by listening to what you went through in the ’70’s. I have been selfish into thinking. Some Whites were experiencing racism as well. Others as the movie indicates–were being persecuted for having the courage to take a stand for civil rights. Thanks for sharing your memory & pain. I will now view these matters from a much broader perspective.

August 31, 2013 6:52 pm

volfan007

I love Black people. I think that people should be judged based on the content of their character, rather than on the color of their skin.

We’re people who are prone to resent and attack differences of all sorts. And only the renewed mind of Romans and the clean heart of Psalms can hope to change that. But I don’t read where that’s ever going to be widespread enough to make much differences.

If these were not foreordained to be dark days, God would not have had to tell us to let our light shine.

August 30, 2013 2:16 pm

Debbie Kaufman

I can’t accept that Bob. We are to be the light, on that we agree, and that includes racism. I mean no disrespect, as you know how I feel about you and Peg, but it is not necessarily the last days and as a whole, society is more ahead and guiding the race issue in the right direction more than Christians. That is wrong. Very, very wrong. I believe it is deep sin that we are so far behind or allow it by accepting is as “the deep dark last days”, personally I don’t believe it is the last days, but even if I did, that is no excuse to let it continue without doing something.

August 30, 2013 2:25 pm

John Wylie

Debbie and Bob,

I get both of your points. I do believe that we are living in the last days and humanity is going to get more and more unattached to one another, but I do agree with Debbie’s sentiments. Racism stops with me, and my family, and the church that I pastor.

Do you remember the old song “Brighten the corner where you are”? The concept is you and I should do what we can, where God has placed us to make a difference.

I recently had Dr. Dwight McKissic come and preach to my church. He did a great job, and made history at the same time as the first black man to preach in the pulpit in our church’s 124 year history. I cannot tell you how much his friendship means to me. In honor of him I will be going and seeing “The Butler” soon, because I want to be able to see these issues from the other perspective as much as possible.

It’s time that we do all we can do to end racism in our churches and show the world what Christ meant we he said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples–if you have love for one another.” LEB

August 30, 2013 2:59 pm

Bill Mac

without doing something.

Specifically, what are you doing that you know other Christians are not doing?

August 31, 2013 9:01 am

Adam G. in NC

I admit, the sarcasm was insensitive…but I do reject the notion of perpetual white racism being employed by some recently…and the reason I reject it is because it only focuses on the “eyesight” of one section/race. It doesnt help anything.

You dont avoid one ditch (historic white racism) by jumping headlong into the other (perpetual class struggle).

Adam, it is not “jumping headlong” into “perpetual class struggle” to admit the horror of what White America did to blacks over the years.

Watching this movie helps one understand the black experience and on that basis it is worth it.

Strangely, by watching and enjoying (and endorsing) this movie, I was not required to lay down my conservative principles, nor sign on to the political aims of Jackson or Sharpton. But I did get a better understanding of why people feel the way they do.

August 30, 2013 3:49 pm

Adam G. in NC

Dave, of course it is not. I dont deny that.
I do think that the idea that all white people in america view life through the residue of the privileged class is straight outta critical race theory and the vehicle that perpetual class struggle rides in on. If true, there will be no end to the struggle…except THE end. The only way out would be to hope your kids marry someone specifically of a minority race.

I really do think that the only way to get past American racism (and we can) is for individuals to truly not find their identities in a specifice race. As long as we hear folks talk about “black churches” and “white churches” and “blackness” and “whiteness” in an affirming way, then it cant happen. We HAVE to lay our “black pride” or “white pride” down at the cross…in ALL its forms

Adam, I’m not really into discussing critical race theory or any of that. My point is much more simple.

We need to understand as White Christians that the world we grew up in is very different from that which many blacks experienced. It behooves us to understand our land from the perspective of those on the other side of the racial divide.

This movie helps us do that.

I agree with your hope and goal – that we would all find our identity in Christ, not in our race. Noble goal.

But I do not think that the way to that goal is for us (as Whites) to demand that blacks forget all that has been done to them.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

August 30, 2013 4:58 pm

Adam G. in NC

No problem. I think you’re right that it’s not our (whites) place to demand that blacks forget all that has been done to them, that’s the work of the Holy Spirit.

Your response here to Adam is perhaps even more impactful, than your post. Especially the part where you told him,that it is not the job of White America. Try asking the Jews to disengage from their painful history?

August 31, 2013 2:11 am

John Fariss

I have not yet seen the movie, but hope to soon. Thanks, Dave, for your perspective.

I might be wrong, but I suspect that younger white Southerners, younger whites influenced by Southern culture (which would include the Southern Baptist Convention), and even white Southerners my age (61 next week) who were insulated from the events of the ’60s, will all have a harder time understanding the struggles of that era. I was not so insulated. My father was police chief in Talladega, Alabama, home of the mostly black Talladega College back then. The city fathers sent him to Birmingham to “learn how to handle these situations,” and he was on the police line with Eugene “Bull” Conner when they turned the fire hoses and police dogs on peaceful demonstrators. They sent him to Selma also to “learn,” and he was there when the sheriff locked up demonstrators and then ran them on, I think it was, a 10 mile hike in the sweltering south Alabama heat, to take the starch out of them. To his credit, he did not like those tactics and did not allow them used in Talladega; he had no toleration for the KKK, but he was prejudiced with a very paternalistic attitude toward African-Americans. As a young police officer myself in the mid- or late-1970s, I sat in the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office and listened to Sheriff Mac Simm Butler (on old newsreels and film clips of the demonstrations in Montgomery, he is just behind the front lines, wearing a Stetson and sitting on a big white horse) laugh about some of the horrible things he and his deputies did to some demonstrators and “agitators”.

Yes, there is such a thing as racism against whites, but it is a reaction against what blacks endured in that era rather than a “pre-emptive” attack, which is what white America (especially the white South) did to blacks. And I guarantee you: racism (against Africa-Americans) is still alive and well everywhere I have lived, which is Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. I suggest that such a realization of racism past and present is what any conservative white person needs to begin watching the film understanding.

BTW, two other movies, besides the great To Kill a Mockingbird, that give a realist picture of racism in America’s past, and some measure of the healing that can take place and has taken place, are The Help and Driving Miss Daisy. Both these films give a pretty accurate depiction of life in the old south and the racism that was widespread back then. But they also portray some measure of redemption of some of the characters involved. Very real and very suitable for understanding and healing.

I remember growing up in south Alabama in the 1960s and 1970s. We had “help.” But most people were like our family in that most didn’t treat their “help” the way it was portrayed in The Help. Oh. those did exist and people I know from Jackson, MS tell me that it was pretty mush as was portrayed in the movie. But not so in all southern areas.

And Miss Daisy and Hoke? Scores of relationships like theirs developed where I grew up. There came to be almost like family bonding between the employer and employee.

I tell you what changed my views on this, Les (once my views were closer to the defensive posture several here have demonstrated). I talked to several black men.

One, of course, was Dwight, who opened my eyes to the facts of what is STILL taking place in the SBC. It broke my heart. Though, I believe in the years since that first conversation (Orlando SBC) things have changed for the better.

The other was a deacon in my church, a black man. He is now with the Lord, but he told me stories of things that happened to him and his family in Sioux City – in the recent past. He talked about what it was like growing up in Sioux City and told me stories that broke my heart.
‘
Here was a gentle and dignified man who was treated despicably by white people. After his wife died, he used to go out to eat after church with some of the older folks in the church. Many were widows. Once, after eating at a local restaurant (it happened that day that all the others at the table were widows) he was confronted by a couple of white men who warned him about hanging out with white women. This was within the last FIVE years. He would not go out with them any more unless other women went along.

He told me that there were restaurants in Siouxland that would not serve him. They would seat him but “forget” to serve him. The thing is, Sioux City is not considered a “racist” city, and this stuff still goes on.

So, talking to Dwight and Grady opened my eyes to see what my own experience hadn’t taught me.

I appreciate that perspective. It saddens me to hear of that so recently. I know it still happens. And I could recount similar events from growing up in south Alabama.

I’m in Auburn, AL right now. I’m out and about here in restaurants and such. And I can tell you that the south is light years past the old south ways. I’ve said before here that my wife is from Clayton, AL. Clayton is the childhood home of George Wallace. He used to kick off all his campaigns in that little town. It was a white separation bastion back in the day. And I remember preaching there in the only SB church there in the mid eighties when a black could not enter for worship. And when the Alabama Boys Ranch was rumored to have a little black boy soon to be coming to the ranch. Oh no! All the kids came every Sunday to that little SB church. But what would they do now? Deacons meetings were held. How could they allow this little boy to come to church there? Praise God for a relatively new pastor who put his career on the line and said if he can’t come there, he was quitting! The little boy as it turned out never came to the ranch, but the pastor was instrumental in bringing about repentance to thos people for their racism.

I was married in that church in 1979. And I invited a black man to my wedding. People were aghast when he walked in and sat with my family. Because he was almost part of my family, having worked for us for years.

Later, praise God, that little church called a PT youth pastor who has adopted two black childen and the church welcomed them.

Is it perfect here? Not at all. But is it like 1960 or 1970 or even 1980? Not by a longshot.

I see whites sitting down together in the only diner in town every trip there eating together. In George Wallace’s home town.

We are not we ought to be but we are way further along than we ever thought we’d be. And may I add, much of this new acceptance is being led and modeled by the so called YRR. And YNRR. Younger Christians, and non Christians alike, are just not into racial separation. Thanks God.

Actually, one of the points that the movie makes is the progress over the years.

August 30, 2013 5:00 pm

Tarheel

Dave Miller,

Let’s not forget that Oprah created (lied) about an encounter in sweden, was it? As a promo tool for the movie.

This action by her lowered any desire I had to see the movie. Then as others have talked about the misrepresentations of the “true story” my desire has all but diminished.

But, when it comes out on Netflix (I’m cheap-theatres cost too much) I watch it based on your recomendation.

The movie is probably like eating a fried chicken leg…there’s probably some good meat but ya gotta eat around the bone to enjoy it.

I can do that.

August 30, 2013 8:12 pm

Bennett Willis

Tarheel, there is a movie called “Something the Lord Made” that is supposed to be on Netflix. You might find it interesting.

August 31, 2013 10:28 pm

Christiane

DAVID MILLER, some of these remarks are just plain ‘remarkable’ . . . where do some folks get their information ?

example:
Oprah lied about a situation in Sweden?

?

August 30, 2013 9:54 pm

Tarheel

I placed a question mark behind Sweden because I wasn’t sure of the country…it was Switzerland. I didn’t say she lied there….I said she lied about an incident there….it’s not uncommon for her to do that when she’s got a movie coming out.

I post examples soon.

August 31, 2013 8:00 am

Tarheel

In 2005, she cried racism when a high end store in FRANCE turned her and her cohorts away. She arrived at the store after it had closed and the workers were preparing for a private party. A security guard stopped her at the door informing her the were closed, gave her a card and encouraged her to come back tommorrow. She and her people touted it was because she was Black….they were closed. Please.

In 1998 she cried racism when she was sued by cattlemen over a series of shows she did about mad cow diasese….the case was about loss of income on thier part and had nothing to do with racism. Yet she incessantly linked the case to racism.

She has a track record of spurning up stories for sustain her platform.

My point in all this is this….holder, Jackson, Sharpton, Winfrey, the makers of this movie, and others don’t need to spin tales and “create” racism….there’s plenty of real instances….they simply trivialize the real problems with thier “mythical stories”.

The makers could have produced a movie that was admittadly fictional To convey the message…but they chose to pretend to be telling a true story…and it wasn’t at all. They sensationalized a mans life beyond recognition and pretended it was “true”…. Just like the others I mentioned…spinning up a tale.

August 31, 2013 8:29 am

Tarheel

*a movie coming out or for recognition and financial gain/preservation.

August 31, 2013 8:31 am

Richard

We need to stop trying to absolve our consciences and/or our collective guilt by being party to stuff like Oprah’s alleged lying. After the success of The Help, no one needed to stage any such incidents, and I daresay Ms. Winfrey knows that. Facts are facts. Such things happened. And if you had grown up in MS, as did Oprah and I, you would have enough vivid memories to contextualize your thinking and your outlook. Let me give you two instances of our attempts to divert our guilt back then. In the early 1960s, when three civil rights workers were killed in Philadelphia, MS, my mother wrote me that it was all a communist plot, and that the press had planted the burned out car so that local law officers could find it. Secondly, in MS, the March on Washington was predicted to be a huge failure, planned by leaders whom the FBI had dubbed as “communist.” Well, you have seen the news coverage this week, and you have seen the masses of black and white joined together in singing and praying, and you have heard King’s stirring cry for justice, again and again. We can concoct any story we want to discredit those who lead, or those who speak through film, but the facts remain that the movement was born of oppression, and movies like this are needed to remind us that we must be leaders for Christian truth and freedom. When the marching was going on in the 1960’s, Southern Baptists were ignoring it, or, if they spoke out, they lost their pulpits. It is now time for us to have the courage to follow the Lord, regardless of traditional or political leanings.

So, I hold guilt for actions I had no part of and am truly disgusted by?

If so, how exactly am I to remedy the past?

I can only make sure I don’t think or behave like a racist and train your chidren to love people. I can preach and teach Gods word and implore people to love others.

Also, discrediting the “leaders”? Really?

So because Oprah was raised in Mississippi, she gets passes fr concocting “racist” stories in France and Switzerland and in Texas?

Like I said…it trivialized REAL cases of racism. You support that?

Sharpton and Jackon’s tactics? Yu support those?

When racism happens….no matter the skin color of the perpetrator it’s wrong. I contend it’s racist behavior to lie, spin, and concoct stories and events to increase raise tensions….no matter what skin color they have. They should nt be respected, held up, or given passes….their actions are a big part of the problem.

Yes, sir, Richard. Well said. To hide behind politics is to miss the power of this movie – giving a glimpse into the experience of black Americans in the last 50-75 years.

August 31, 2013 12:10 pm

Tarheel

I’ll point out I’ve not mentioned politics or hid behind anything.

I’ve called out racists, and expressed dismay over Hollywood depicting lies and sensationalism as “a true story”. I don’t think it’s helpful….but I do think when we, though some form of “white guilt”, embrace such we’re contributing to the problem not being a part of the solution.

August 31, 2013 12:20 pm

Tarheel

They dont get a pass for sin because of mistreatment in the past either…

Revenge is also a sin.

August 31, 2013 12:23 pm

Richard

I’m not sure how my thoughts got placed earlier….they were in response to Tarheel and Mitchell, so the reader can think of them that way, if at all. Thanks.

August 31, 2013 11:24 am

Christiane

blessed are the peace makers . . .

August 31, 2013 3:41 pm

Bennett Willis

For those of you who like the Netflix price–you might watch “Something the Lord Made.” It covers some of the same topics from another point of view.

August 31, 2013 10:31 pm

Christiane

thank you, BENNETT WILLIS, for the reference . . . the trailer for that film looks terrific

August 31, 2013 10:43 pm

Truth unites... And divides

Not going to financially support a movie that lies a lot to support a liberal agenda.

Same principle in not financially supporting the mainstream media that lies a lot to support a liberal agenda.

Will support media which uses true facts to illuminate common grace and special grace… Like Duck Dynasty!!!

Duck Dynasty > The Butler.

September 1, 2013 10:35 am

Tarheel

I went to see the movie last night.

It was highly political and left wing agenda driven…no doubt about that….but –

Some of the scenes in the movie did bring me to tears – the bus bombing, the sit ins…etc… That was horrific. The vulgarity of the racial language was ear and heart peircing. Stuff like that happened back then and was absolutely deplorable. I’m very glad that things like that today are very rare today. We’ve trully come a long way.

I was struck by the LBJ depiction. He was clearly, according to the movie, and the annals of history, an abject racist yet was embraced as a hero because of his push for voting rights…which was clearly more about politics than principle.

RR was depicted as a racist, and a showman (common liberal charicatures of him) and the rally at the end where his positions were depicted as being racist did not limit itself to the complex situation in South Africa.

With respect…pretending this movie wasn’t left wing agenda driven is niave and honestly silly.

But, I like you, David gained a glimpse or two into a world that in large part is “foreign” to me. I appreciated that aspect of the movie.

Violent strategies and tactics were and are just as wrong as the racist behavior and attitudes of whites. Two wrongs never make a right. It was the WRONG approach and I’m convinced that it actually slowed down civil rights political reform. I’m reminded that it was the peaceful approach that was way more powerful and eventually won the day…that is a good lesson to take away.

Mr. Miller, I watched the movie for what it was as you suggested…there was some meat to take away…but there was also lots of bone.

Another movie I’d recommend is “a time to kill” it’ too is reality based fiction and very powerful.

I’ll share this. I too cried on election night and on the Inaguration of president Obama….I didn’t vote for him either time, and oppose pretty much every governing policy he espouses on grounds of both my faith and philosophical differences….but my tears were trully tears of joy that finally…in the greatest nation in the world….we’ve got a black president. That is a high symbol of the progress made…it’s a ceiling that needed to be busted. I’m glad it was. I only wish his actions and opportunities in office had been used to continue that progress – sadly though, IMO…..his, and others, wasting of those opportunities has set race relations backwards.

But great progress has been made and also great obstacles are being consistently put in the way of more progress (coming from BOTH “sides”)…human depravity is a terrible thing.

My ipad only shows a map with lots of blue dots, I assume indicating where people live??? if the map demonstrates where people live it makes total sense….the total population of most states, certainly large swaths of states anyway, in the mid west are smaller than many cities in the NE, South, Great Lakes area and the west coast so it stands to reason that the map would look like that.

September 2, 2013 8:41 am

Dale Pugh

The bigger picture (smaller picture?) becomes clearer when you go to the actual page and zoom in to the neighborhoods. Interesting stuff, in my opinion. Blue dots are Caucasians. Other races are indicated by different colors. Green is black, for instance. I just linked Stetzer’s article. You have to follow the links to the source in order to have the zoom capability.
And, Tarheel, I’m not saying anyone has denied anything, I’m simply stating the obvious. If I say, “North Carolina has a lousy football team,” I’m simply stating the obvious. No one has denied that fact. No one will deny that fact. I’m just saying it. Out loud. 🙂
I’d be interested to know what your definition of “great progress and great obstacles” might be.

September 2, 2013 9:00 am

Tarheel

See you dun got personal. 🙂 Let’s talk when roundball season rolls around.

I’m not sure how old you are but we’re nearing a third generation removed from the civil rights movements of the 50s – 70’s….the idea of treating anyone like blacks were treated back in that day is becoming more and unthinkable in the hearts and minds of youngsters with each new generation.

Blacks today are an essential part of the human and American society. The legal and governmentally sanctioned discrimination is largely a thing of the past.

Obstaces…as President Bush said…soft bigotry still exists in the from of low educational expectations for minorities and I would further through argue affirmative action policies. Also there’s the racist wing of “black leadership” and entertainment communities that only seem to exist to stir up and exacerbate tensions and continue to incite a culture of anger in each generation based on the past and “creative” depictions of current events.

September 2, 2013 11:12 am

Dale Pugh

I’m a fan of NC basketball. Just had to get in a little football season dig.
I would agree with your assessment of progress and obstacles.

Interesting article, even though I had resisted until this morning, you have baited me well… into responding.

Racism among those in power has always been an issue, and will remain an issue while sin exists in the heart of man. Maybe a better subtitle for the movie should have been….”The fictional account of a butler in the Whitehouse sends a clarion call for the true gospel to be spoken to this nation and all nations”.

The well-defined situational fiction of the Butler movie is already having a profound effect on its short-lived success. While it is well understood that Lee Daniels and Oprah needed to build up a lead-in into the Martin Luther King, Jr. 50th anniversary, the content of “The Butler” fictional account did leave some audiences silently stunned and befuddled, and others erupting into applause….which best represents the real racist character that exists in our America culture today. We all still tend to like our own color best.

The reality of racism in the heart of man is not different today than it was in the days of King, yet some laws have been successful at yielding an advance to deny bigotry, or the acting out of racist mindset. Something that a well-defined law is intended to do…whether it is relative to God’s law to the Israelites or the Constitution relative to those that belong to American life. More the reason for Christians of all color and background in America…..to struggle in a quivering effort to hold a mirror up to our own faces, and then struggle to love all other faces without looking back. That may be too much to ask of some movie makers, or movie watchers.

For the movie itself,…nothing new was brandished on the screen, even if you take it that some situations were relatively historical in nature, yet inserted for Daniel’s and Oprah’s initiative. It is of little doubt that the real butler in the White House made less money than his white counterparts. That is a travesty, and a tell-tell sign of how power and bigotry works. Simply put, “I have a discounted love for you my “friend””. For me personally, I would be very interested in watching a documentary about the “Real Butler”, and have the inequality of pay brought to the fore-front as an expression of actual bigotry. That would be worthy of my time. Or maybe even how power in America has crushed the ambitions of native North Americans…known to some as Indians. Simply put,…truth tends to have a longer lasting legacy.

As for this “Butler”…. It appears that the makers of the movie were successful at what they set out to do; create a fictional account of a black Butler in the White House to carry forward the sensational injustices of the past.

For someone who ministers in the inner-city, this movie got mixed reviews in the neighborhood.

Blessings,
Chris

September 2, 2013 12:18 pm

Tarheel

“Simply put,…truth tends to have a longer lasting legacy. ”

THAT sir, was and still is my objection to the portrayals in the movie. This movie was not about truth…though it was purported to be.

Lots of people made lots of loot off this movie…..in fact the production company bought the rights to his story…so they now own it and can tell it anyway they want.

I just wish they had been more honest in the marketing of the fictional tale.

Probably the most astounding thing to me during the past week were the reactions from folks that live and work in the inner-city, and how the audiences seemed to approach the film. I only went to the inner-city showing of the movie, …but did discuss this with another individual that went to a lower-income suburb where the end of the movie was met with applause. In our showing a hush and mood swing went through the crowd with about 30 minutes remaining. Of course, I was curious to why….so I began to ask questions.

One guy that I know that was at the same showing and had the same reaction. In fact, he is Canadian with limited American history, and it made such a puzzling impact on him that he went home and researched the material. He later told me how disappointed he was to find out the real Butler, not the movie depicted Butler was actually from Virginia, and that the Georgia scene was a complete fabrication. It left him wondering why someone would go to that extreme to try to paint a racist scene,…in this case not even connected to the reality of the main character.

Others that seem to like the movie raved more about the acting,…which for acting purposes was very good; especially the younger brother. They expressed to me that they watched the movie with more of a “Forest Gump” approach. I think they realized that the scenes were fabricated, but overlooked the true reality of the situational fiction and from that perspective they really enjoyed the movie. They joined into the applause at the end based upon the production value, not necessarily the reality of any of the fictional characters to display real events, even though they were familiar with the some of the famous situations.

I thought the responses were a very consistent sign of how people view movies. The gentleman in the inner-city was looking for what truth was present based upon the movies claim of being “inspired by actual events”. He found the inspiration exaggerated to an extent that caused him to fact check the scenes. He came away puzzled, and was not really sure of the intent.

On the other hand, there were those that liked the entertainment, acting, etc. and since they knew that the content was more “Forest Gump” than reality, they tended to enjoy the drama. Others drank the cool-aide and probably didn’t know much about the more accurate content of the situations in American history, so it became a real emotional ride.

As for me… since I am more aware of the game that Daniel’s and Oprah tend to play,…my reaction is that they got exactly what they planned to get. A lot of hype, coverage, and accolades for a fictional drama, that they would like for anyone that will listen to their rhetoric to believe that they truly care for the best outcome for race relations in America. Unfortunately,…this movie was not really about a Butler. His position and title just made this a memorable preamble to the 50th anniversary made ripe for the viewing audience. I would very much like to see a real documentary, about the real Butler from the state of Virginia; his real family, and the injustices of his remuneration steeped in bigotry. That would be worth the money, and actually be more productive for the inner-city neighborhood to see how those injustices are corrected under law!

Thanks for the response. The Georgia scene may not have been true of Eugene Allen, but it was not an uncommon experience during that era(early 1900’s –1960’s). This movie was never marketed as a documentary. Therefore, the criticisms that this movie mixes true historical incidents with the life of The Butler are without merit in my judgement. One only has to study history in this era to discover that the rape/murder scene fit the facts of history during the era The Butler was born and serving as The Butler.

I don’t disagree that those things happened. But, to let the world think that it happened the way it happened from the view of their Butler is on par for the kind of work the authors of this fictional account want you to believe. As some would say…the creators of this fictional account did a good job of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I guess Daniels and Winfrey should be glad it was not a documentary….

As you can tell, I really don’t have much faith in what that bunch has put out over the years.

Now if we want to discuss the atrocities of an American government toward the black community, then there is a lot to talk about, and we should by all means never forget those realities, because the basis for forgiveness and correction springs out of remembering.

The reason we have had a great deal of success in the inner-city ministries in Nashville for over 19 years is from following the truth and instilling discipline, … and that approach has out distanced the Daniel’s and Winfrey school of racial equality many times over. We are running a different race than D & W. Our ministries remember those same atrocities, yet with different understanding, and for different reasons. Believe me,…the government in Nashville is getting worse, not better with respect to creating dependence within the inner city community. Which only brings about the ugly opportunity for more racial inequalities.

Blessings,
Chris

September 2, 2013 9:37 pm

Tarheel

It was not marketed as a documentary….but was marketed as being based on a true story….they missed an opportunity to produce a really good movie as I’m willing to bet (if I were a better that an actual story based on the true story of the real Butler would have been quite compelling ) ….but they opted for propoganda filled fiction…mixed in with events that happened but definitely didn’t happen to the real Butler or his family.

I appreciate your inner city work. You display the right heart, mind, and spirit, to do this type of work.

I am assuming the Canadian in the inner city was White who registered a concern about Eugene Allen’s life & The Butler’s life not always consistently parelleling. I find it interesting that I have not heard one Black person register a concern or complaint that Eugene Allen’s life did not completely reflect each other in every detail. Like your Canadian acquaintance, I researched and discovered the inconsistencies, but I was not in the least bit bothered by that. Why not? Because I had experienced, read, and heard enough oral history to know that there was nothing in the movie that did not comport with factual occurrences during that time frame in history.

The Butler was a docu-drama as opposed to a documentary. In a docu-drama, there is a mixture of historical facts and reality….and drama. There is usually a liberal poetic license exercised when the movie is a docu-drama. This happens in the movie industry all the time. Why are you & others holding this movie(docu-drama) to a different standard?

Whether one is Black or White has little to do with why a real Butler has to be changed into another Butler that experienced something he never experienced (In other words, it would have made a big difference if his father was shot in the head in Georgia, ….but to say that every Black boy has a father shot in the head in Georgia should be the view and remembrance of every Black boy in America…that is more like pure daytime Oprah television). Again, I am not too concerned with the whole matter, because it will blow over soon, …..but, will have had only a negative impact on Black and White “race relations”. The point is… Winfrey and Daniel’s could care less what happens in the inner city, or they would have done the more difficult task of telling the true life of a real Butler in the White House.

And, I would say, they missed that opportunity because of their bias, the god they follow, and what they believe is the most important mark on history…. their own. You see, they missed the significance of telling the story of the real Butler, and they missed at an opportunity to move relationships between White and Black in a positive direction. They took the easy road paved only with their own aspirations.

I guess the movie didn’t impress me at all for a lot of reasons. The acting was done well though…

The issue here is the different perceptions that Whites & Blacks have concerning this movie, and the importance or non-importance that one places on whether or not Eugene Allen’s life is copied in total in this movie. To you, Tarheel, and a few others, that is of utmost importance. To me & most Blacks, and some Whites that is of no real significance in a docu-drama. As a matter of fact, it is expected. Just as the Zimmerman verdict was interpreted differently, generally depending upon one’s race, the perception of whether or not mirroring Eugene Allen’s life in total is seemingly only important to people generally based on race. If there was a major distortion of history presented, I would be the first to complain. But there was not, therefore I am failing to understand the grounds on which you, Tarheel & others are concerned. I still don’t know from your answer whether or not the Canadian was White or Black. There are Black Canadians as you know. What makes this important is seeing how different races view the importance of mimicking Allen’s life in the movie differently. Are you aware that this commonly done in Hollywood?

September 3, 2013 10:20 am

John Botkin

I agree with Dave that most young, white SBC pastors probably need a history lesson on racism in America. That being said, I probably wouldn’t get it from “The Butler.” I say for this for lots of reasons, but first among them is this: I hate revisionist history. I would rather read a book on the real butler than see some vague, loosely-based of him. And let’s be honest, as soon as “based on a true story” was slapped on the film, this WILL BE history for most people who see it. However, I also freely admit that this is my preference and that the issue is itself is still an important one for our culture. We should be aware of past realities to better understand present perceptions.